MOH NURSING CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES 1/2002

Prevention of
Infections Related
to Peripheral
Intravenous Devices

May 2002
STATEMENT OF INTENT
This set of guidelines aims to serve as a guide for practitioners who are
involved in caring for or treating adult patients with peripheral intravenous
devices. The recommendations are based on the available research findings.
However, there are some aspects in which there is insufficient published
research and, therefore, consensus of experts in the field has been utilised
to provide guidelines specific to conventional practice.
Every practitioner is accountable and responsible for the prevention of
infection associated with peripheral intravenous devices. It is recommended
that individual practitioners assess the appropriateness of the
recommendations with regards to individual patient condition, overall
treatment goal, resource availability, institutional policies and treatment
options available before adopting any recommendation in clinical practice.
FOREWORD

The use of intravenous devices is an integral part of patient care in

hospitals. These devices are used for the administration of fluid,
nutrients, medications, blood products and to monitor the
haemodynamic status of a patient. However, intravenous devices also
provide a potential route for micro-organisms to enter the blood stream
resulting in a variety of local or systemic infections. These cannula-
related infections are often associated with prolonged hospitalisation,
increased morbidity and mortality.
In order to minimise the risk of infection associated with these devices
we are pleased to present the guidelines on Prevention of infections
related to peripheral intravenous devices to all healthcare practitioners
involved in the care of adult patients.
These guidelines are adapted with permission from the Guidelines for
prevention of intravascular device-related infections produced by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
PROFESSOR TAN CHORH CHUAN
DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL SERVICES
CONTENTS
page
1.
Summary of Recommendations .....................................................
..1

2.
Introduction....................................................................
...................7

3.
Development of Guidelines.......................................................
......10

4.
Asepsis and Cannulation ........................................................
........13

5.
Maintenance ....................................................................
...............16

6.
Miscellaneous Issues............................................................
..........22

7.
Surveillance ...................................................................
.................24

8.
Education and Training .........................................................
..........25

9.
Clinical Audit .................................................................
..................26

10.
Implementation of Guidelines ...................................................
......28
References .....................................................................
.................29
Self Assessment ................................................................
.............36
Workgroup Members ..............................................................
........38
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Handwashing

Wash hands before and after palpating, inserting, replacing, or

dressing any IV device.
Grade B, Level IIb
Barrier precautions during cannula insertion and care

Wear non-latex or latex gloves when inserting an IV device.

Grade C, Level IV

Wear non-latex or latex gloves when changing the dressings on IV

devices.
Grade C, Level IV

Use sterile or non-sterile clean gloves during change of dressings.

GPP
Selection of peripheral cannula insertion site

Use an upper extremity site in preference to one on a lower extremity

for cannula insertion. Transfer a cannula inserted in a lower extremity
site to an upper extremity site as soon as the latter is available.
Grade A, Level Ib
Selection and replacement of IV devices

Select a device with the lowest relative risk of complications

(infectious versus non-infectious) and the lowest costs for the
anticipated type and duration of IV therapy. The risk and benefits of
replacing a device at a recommended schedule to reduce infectious
complications should be weighed against the risk of mechanical
complications and availability of alternative sites. Decisions regarding
the type of device and its frequency of replacement should be
determined on an individual patient basis.
Grade C, Level IV
1
 Select cannulas based on the intended purpose, duration of use,
experience at the institution and known complications (e.g.,
phlebitis). Use a Teflon cannula, a polyurethane cannula or a steel
needle.
Grade A, Level Ib
Avoid the use of steel needles for the administration of fluids and
medications that may cause tissue necrosis if extravasation occurs.
Grade B, Level III
Remove any IV device as soon as it is no longer clinically indicated.
Grade C, Level IV
Wear non-latex or latex gloves when removing IV cannula.
GPP
Replace short, peripheral venous cannulas, and rotate peripheral
venous sites every 48 to 72 hours to minimise the risk of phlebitis.
Remove cannulas inserted under emergency conditions, where
breaks in aseptic technique are likely to have occurred. Insert a
new cannula at a different site within 24 hours.
Grade A, Level Ib
Cannula site care
Before cannula insertion, cleanse the skin site with an appropriate
antiseptic, including 70% alcohol or 10% povidone-iodine. Allow
the antiseptic to remain on the insertion site for an appropriate length
of time before inserting the cannula.
Grade A, Level Ib
Do not palpate the insertion site after the skin has been cleansed
with antiseptic (this does not apply to maximum barrier precautions
during which the operator is working in a sterile field).
Grade C, Level IV
Use either a transparent dressing or sterile gauze to cover the
cannula site.
Grade A, Level Ib
2
Replace cannula site dressings when they become damp, loosened,
or soiled, or when the device is removed or replaced. Change
dressings more frequently in diaphoretic patients.
Grade A, Level Ib

Avoid touch contamination of the cannula insertion site when the

dressing is replaced.
Grade C, Level IV

Do not routinely apply topical anti-microbial ointment to the insertion

site of peripheral venous cannulas.
Grade A, Level Ib
Cannula care

Routinely flush peripheral venous locks with normal saline solution,

unless they are used for obtaining blood specimens, in which case
a diluted heparin (10 units per ml) flush solution should be used.
Grade A, Level Ia

No recommendation for the routine use of topical venodilators (e.g.,

glyceryl trinitrate) or anti-inflammatory agents (e.g., cortisone) near
the insertion site of peripheral venous cannulas to reduce phlebitis.
No recommendation for the routine use of hydrocortisone or heparin
in parenteral solutions to reduce phlebitis.
Replacement of administration sets and IV fluids

In general, administration sets include the area from the spike of

tubing entering the fluid container to the hub of the vascular device.
However, a short extension tube may be connected to the vascular
device and may be considered a portion of the device to facilitate
aseptic technique when changing administration sets. Replace
extension tubing when the vascular device is replaced.
Grade C, Level IV
3
 Replace IV tubing, including piggyback tubing and stopcocks, no
more frequently than at 72-hour intervals, unless clinically indicated.
Grade A, Level Ib
No recommendation for the frequency of replacement of IV tubing
used for intermittent infusions.
Replace tubing used to administer blood and blood products
immediately after transfusion.
Grade C, Level IV
Replace tubing used to administer lipid emulsions within 24 hours
of initiating the infusion.
Grade B, Level III
Intravenous injection ports

Clean injection ports with 70% alcohol before accessing the system.
Grade C, Level IV
Preparation and quality control of IV admixtures
Check all containers of parenteral fluid for visible turbidity, leaks,
cracks, particulate matter and the manufacturer s expiration date
before use.
Grade C, Level IV
Use single-dose vials for parenteral additives or medications
whenever possible.
Grade B, Level III
Refrigerate multi-dose vials after they are opened as recommended
by the manufacturer.
Grade B, Level IIb
Cleanse the rubber diaphragm of multi-dose vials with 70% alcohol
before inserting a device into the vial.
Grade B, Level III
4
Use a sterile device each time a multi-dose vial is accessed, and
avoid touch contamination of the device before penetrating the
rubber diaphragm.
Grade B, Level III

Discard multi-dose vials, when suspected or visible contamination

occurs or when the manufacturer s stated expiration date is due.
Grade B, Level III
In-line filters

Do not use filters routinely for infection control purposes.

Grade B, Level IIa
Needleless intravascular devices

No recommendation for use of needleless intravascular devices.

Prophylactic anti-microbials

Do not administer anti-microbials routinely before insertion or during

use of an IV device to prevent cannula colonisation or bloodstream
infection.
Grade A, Level Ib
Surveillance for cannula-related infection

Palpate the cannula insertion site daily for tenderness through the
intact dressing.
Grade C, Level IV
Inspect the cannula site visually if the patient has evidence of
tenderness at the insertion site, fever without obvious cause, or
symptoms of local or bloodstream infection.
Grade C, Level IV
5
 In patients who have large, bulky dressings that prevent palpation
or direct visualisation of the cannula insertion site, remove the
dressing, visually inspect the cannula site at least daily and apply a
new dressing.
Grade C, Level IV
Record the date and time of cannula insertion in an obvious location
near the cannula-insertion site (e.g., on the dressing).
Grade C, Level IV
Conduct surveillance for IV device-related infections to determine
device-specific infection rates, to monitor trends in those rates, and
to assist in identifying lapses in infection control practices within
one s own institution.
Grade B, Level IIa
Do not routinely perform surveillance cultures of devices used for IV
access.
Grade B, Level IIb
Health care worker education and training
Conduct ongoing education and training of health care workers
regarding procedures for the insertion and maintenance of IV devices
and appropriate infection control measures to prevent IV device-
related infections. Audiovisuals can serve as a useful adjunct to
educational efforts.
Grade A, Level Ib
6
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
The use of intravascular access devices (venous or arterial) is an integral
part of patient care. Some access the veins or arteries through
peripheral sites (mainly forearm and hand), while others are done
through central vessels. These indwelling devices provide a route for
administering infusions such as fluids, intravenous medications, blood
products, nutrients, for procuring blood specimens and for monitoring
haemodynamic status of critically ill patients.
During the use of intravenous (IV) devices, micro-organisms may enter
the blood stream and is associated with a variety of local or systemic
infections resulting in prolonged hospitalisation, increased morbidity
and mortality (Pearson 1996) of the patients. However, the risk of
infection associated with the devices can be minimised by appropriate
infection prevention measures.
In this set of guidelines, the term cannula is adopted in preference to
catheter as it better describes the device commonly used in peripheral
venous access. It is also a term generally accepted by nurses in
Singapore.
2.2 Definition
Phlebitis: The inflammation of a vein, which may be accompanied by
pain, erythema, oedema, streak formation, and/or palpable cord
(Pearson 1996).
Colonisation: The growth of an organism from the proximal or distal
cannula segment, or the cannula lumen, and the absence of
accompanying signs of inflammation at the cannulation site (Pearson
1996).
Local cannula-related infection: The growth of an organism from the
proximal or distal cannula segment, or the cannula lumen, with
accompanying signs of inflammation (e.g. erythema, warmth, swelling
7
or tenderness) at the cannula site. In the absence of laboratory
confirmation, cannula-related infection may be diagnosed when there
is purulent drainage from the skin-cannula junction (Pearson 1996).
Cannula-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI): The isolation of the
same organism both from the cannula segment and the blood of a
patient with accompanying clinical symptoms of blood stream infectin
(BSI) and no other apparent source of infection. In the absence of
laboratory confirmation, defervescence after removal of an implicated
cannula from a patient with BSI may be considered indirect evidence
of cannula-related bloodstream infection (Pearson 1996).
Infusate-related bloodstream infection: The isolation of the same
organism both from the infusate and separate percutaneous blood
cultures, with no other identifiable source of infection (Pearson 1996).
2.3 Peripheral IV device-related infections
The most commonly used IV device is the short peripheral venous
cannula which is mainly used in the forearm and hands. Due to its
relatively short duration of use, it is rarely associated with BSI (Gantz
et al 1984; Maki and Ringer 1991; Ena et al 1992). Phlebitis is the most
important complication associated with peripheral venous cannulas,
and is largely a physiochemical or mechanical, rather than an infectious,
phenomenon. Risk factors for the development of phlebitis include
type of infusate, cannula material, size, and host factors. When phlebitis
does occur, the risk of local cannula-related infection may also increase
(Gantz et al 1984; Larson and Hargiss 1984; Hoffman et al 1988).
The pathogenesis of cannula-related infections is complex but most
appear to result from skin organisms at the cannula insertion site
migrating into the cannula track, eventually colonising the cannula tip
(Snydman et al 1982; Cooper and Hopkins 1985). Contamination of
the cannula hub may also be an important contributor to the
colonisation of cannula lumens (Linares et al 1985; Radd et al 1993;
Salzman et al 1993). Handwashing and aseptic technique are the major
preventive strategies for cannula-related infections.
8
2.4 Scope of the guideline
The guidelines presented in this document aim to provide:
(i)
a conservative interpretation of its available evidence and
(ii)
a practical and relevant advice to the healthcare workers in
Singapore.
The recommendations are applicable for the management of adults
receiving peripheral venous therapy, and may not be appropriate for
the management of neonates and children on IV therapy. It is also not
applicable when other intravsacular devices such as central, arterial
or haemodialysis catheters are used.
The guidelines include recommendations on handwashing, aseptic
techniques, site selection, type of cannula material and size, use of
barrier precautions during cannula insertion, replacement of cannulas,
administration sets, infusate, cannula-site care, use of filters, flush
solutions, prophylactic antimicrobials and newer IV devices (e.g.,
impregnated cannulas, needleless infusion systems).
9
DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES
3.1 Literature review
This set of guidelines is adapted from the Guideline for Prevention of
Intravascular Device-Related Infections by the Centre for Disease
Control of the United States of America (Pearson 1996), as no new
evidence was found from searches on MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane
library between 1995 and 2000.
Current clinical practice in Singapore was reviewed by studying the
existing guidelines and documentation used by various local hospitals
and institutions.
For areas where available evidence is inconsistent or inconclusive,
recommendations were made based on the clinical experience and
judgement of the workgroup or expert committee reports.
3.2 Evidence criteria
For the definitions of the strength of evidence and the grades of
recommendations in this guideline, the workgroup adopted the criteria
used by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), which
originated from Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research, the former
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Literature retrieved were
reviewed and evaluated based on these criteria.
10
3.2.1 Levels of evidence
Level
Ia
Type of Evidence
Evidence obtained from meta-analysis of randomised
controlled trials.
Ib Evidence obtained from at least one randomised
controlled trial.
IIa Evidence obtained from at least one well-designed
controlled study without randomisation.
IIb Evidence obtained from at least one other type of well-
designed quasi-experimental study.
III Evidence obtained from well-designed non-experimental
descriptive studies, such as comparative studies,
correlation studies and case studies.
IV Evidence obtained from expert committee reports or
opinions and/or clinical experiences of respected
authorities.
2.3.2 Grades of recommendation
Grade
A
(evidence levels
Ia, Ib)
Recommendation
Requires at least one randomised controlled trial
as part of the body of literature of overall good
quality and consistency addressing the specific
recommendation.
(evidence levels
IIa, IIb, III)
B Requires availability of well conducted clinical
studies but no randomised clinical trials on the
topic of recommendation.
(evidence level
IV)
C Requires evidence obtained from expert
committee reports or opinions and/or clinical
experiences of respected authorities. Indicates
absence of directly applicable clinical studies of
good quality.
(good practice
points)
GPP Recommended best practice based on the clinical
experience of the guideline development group.
11
3.3 Guidelines review
The draft guidelines was circulated to hospitals and institutions together
with a structured questionnaire for review and evaluation of the
recommendations in clinical practice.
These guidelines will be revised and updated periodically to incorporate
the latest relevant research evidence and expert clinical opinions.
3.4 Limitations
The workgroup recommends that individual practitioners assess the
appropriateness of the recommendations with regards to patient
condition, overall treatment goal, resource availability, institutional
policies, available treatment options and any recent research findings
before adopting any recommendations in clinical practice.
12
ASEPSIS AND CANNULATION
4.1 Handwashing
Handwashing is generally considered the most important procedure
in preventing infections because many types of these infections may
be caused by organisms transmitted on the hands of healthcare
personnel (Steere and Mallison 1975; Simmons et al 1990).
It is also accepted that aseptic technique during insertion of short
peripheral venous cannulas provide adequate protection against
nosocomial infection (Pearson 1996).

Wash hands before and after palpating, inserting, replacing, or

dressing any IV device.
Grade B, Level IIB
4.2 Barrier precautions during cannula insertion and care
There were no studies found on barrier precautions for peripheral
venous cannula insertion. The workgroup decided to base the
recommendations on evidence found on central venous catheter (CVC)
insertion. Raad and colleagues (1994) reported that adopting maximal
barrier precautions can minimise catheter contamination and
subsequent CVC-related infections, regardless whether it is performed
in the operating room or at the patient s bedside.

Wear non-latex or latex gloves when inserting an IV device.

Grade C, Level IV

Use sterile or non-sterile clean gloves during change of dressings.

GPP
4.3 Selection of peripheral cannula insertion site
When determining the site of cannula placement, several factors should
be assessed (Pearson 1996). These include patient-specific factors
13
(e.g., pre-existing cannulas, anatomic deformity, bleeding diathesis),
relative risk of mechanical complications (e.g., bleeding, pneumothorax)
and risk of infection.
It has been shown that the subsequent risk of cannula-related infection
is associated with the site of insertion. Peripheral venous cannulas
inserted in the upper extremity have lower risk of phlebitis than those
on the lower extremity (Phillips and Eyre 1958; McNair and Dudley
1959; Crane 1960). In addition, Maki (1992) reported that cannulas
inserted into the veins of the hand have a lower risk of phlebitis than
those inserted on the upper arm or into the veins on the wrist.

Use an upper extremity site in preference to one on a lower extremity

for cannula insertion. Transfer a cannula inserted in a lower extremity
site to an upper extremity site as soon as the latter is available.
Grade A, Level Ib
4.4 Selection and replacement of IV devices
The material of which the device is made and the intrinsic properties
of the infecting organism can affect cannula-related infection. Certain
cannula materials are more thrombogenic than others, thus
predisposing to cannula colonisation and cannula-related infection
(Stillman 1977). For example, polyvinyl chloride or polyethylene was
found to be less resistant to the adherence of micro-organisms than
cannulas made of Teflon, silicone elastomer, or polyurethane (Sheth et
al 1983; Ashkenazi et al 1986). They were also associated with more
complications (Sheth et al 1983; Maki and Ringer 1987; Martin et al
1989).
Although steel needles have the same rate of infectious complications
as Teflon cannulas (Band and Maki 1980; Tully et al 1981), they were
more frequently associated with the infiltration of IV fluids into the
subcutaneous tissues (Tully et al 1981). This is potentially serious if
vesicant fluid is infused.
Routine or scheduled replacement of IV cannulas has been advocated
as a method to prevent phlebitis and cannula-related infections
(Pearson 1996). One study (Collin et al 1975) reported that the
14
incidences of thrombophlebitis and bacterial colonisation of cannulas
increased dramatically when cannulas were left in place for more than
72 hours. Hence, Band and Maki (1980) suggested that short peripheral
cannula sites be commonly rotated at 48 to 72-hour intervals to reduce
the risk of infection and minimise patient discomfort associated with
phlebitis.

Select a device with the lowest relative risk of complications

(infectious versus non-infectious) and the lowest costs for the
anticipated type and duration of IV therapy. The risk and benefits of
replacing a device at a recommended schedule to reduce infectious
complications should be weighed against the risk of mechanical
complications and availability of alternative sites. Decisions regarding
the type of device and its frequency of replacement should be
determined on an individual patient basis.
Grade C, Level IV

Select cannulas based on the intended purpose, duration of use,

experience at the institution and known complications (e.g.,
phlebitis). Use a Teflon cannula, a polyurethane cannula or a steel
needle.
Grade A, Level Ib

Avoid the use of steel needles for the administration of fluids and
medications that may cause tissue necrosis if extravasation occurs.
Grade B, Level III

Remove any IV device as soon as it is no longer clinically indicated.

Grade C, Level IV

Wear non-latex or latex gloves when changing the dressings on IV

devices.
GPP

Replace short, peripheral venous cannulas, and rotate peripheral

venous sites every 48 to 72 hours to minimise the risk of phlebitis.
Remove cannulas inserted under emergency conditions, where
breaks in aseptic technique are likely to have occurred. Insert a
new cannula at a different site within 24 hours.
Grade A, Level Ib
15
5 MAINTENANCE
5.1 Cannula site care
Skin cleansing or antisepsis of the insertion site is regarded as one of
the most important measures for preventing cannula-related infection
(Rotter et al 1980; Ayliffe et al 1988).
The use of tincture of iodine (such as 70% alcohol and 10% povidone
iodine) as an antiseptic before obtaining blood cultures suggest that it
may be an effective antiseptic for preparation of the skin before insertion
of IV cannulas (Strand et al 1993). Iodine may cause irritation to the
skin (Strand et al 1993) and would require cleansing with alcohol.
A sustained-release chlorhexidine gluconate patch has been introduced
as a dressing for cannula insertion sites (Shapiro et al 1990). However,
its efficacy in reducing IV device-related infection is yet to be
determined.
There was conflicting evidence on the use of anti-microbial ointments
at the time of cannula insertion and during routine dressing changes
to reduce microbial contamination of cannula insertion sites (Norden
1969; Zinner et al 1969; Maki and Band 1981). Several researchers
have reported that the use of poly-antibiotic ointments that are not
fungicidal may in fact increase the rate of colonisation of the cannula
by Candida species (Zinner et al 1969; Maki and Band 1981, Flowers
et al 1989).
The use of transparent, semi-permeable, polyurethane dressings has
fast become the popular means of dressing cannula insertion sites.
Several benefits have been cited. These dressings secure the device,
permit continuous visual inspection of the cannula site, permit patients
to bathe and shower without saturating the dressing, and require less
frequent changes than the standard gauze and tape dressings, thus
saving personnel time (Pearson 1996). However, there were conflicting
evidences related to their use. Some studies (e.g. Craven et al 1985;
Katich and Band 1985) suggest that their use increases both microbial
colonisation of the cannula site and the risk of subsequent cannula

16
related infection. Other studies (e.g. Ricard et al 1985; Maki and Ringer
1987; Hoffmann et al 1988), however, have shown no difference in
cannula colonisation and infection rates between the use of transparent
dressings and gauze and tape dressings. Nevertheless, transparent
dressings can be safely left on peripheral venous cannulas for the
duration of cannula insertion without increasing the risk of
thrombophlebitis (Maki and Ringer 1987).

Before cannula insertion, cleanse the skin site with an appropriate

antiseptic, including 70% alcohol or 10% povidone-iodine. Allow
the antiseptic to remain on the insertion site for an appropriate length
of time before inserting the cannula.
Grade A, Level Ib

Do not palpate the insertion site after the skin has been cleansed
with antiseptic (this does not apply to maximum barrier precautions
during which the operator is working in a sterile field).
Grade C, Level IV

Use either a transparent dressing or sterile gauze to cover the

cannula site.
Grade A, Level Ib

Replace cannula site dressings when they become damp, loose, or

soiled, or when the device is removed or replaced. Change dressings
more frequently in diaphoretic patients.
Grade A, Level Ib

Avoid touch contamination of the cannula insertion site when the

dressing is replaced.
Grade C, Level IV

Do not routinely apply topical anti-microbial ointment to the insertion

site of peripheral venous cannulas.
Grade A, Level Ib
17
5.2 Cannula care
Thrombi and fibrin deposits on cannulas may serve as a nidus for
microbial colonisation of the IV devices (Stillman et al 1977). Though
flush solutions are designed to prevent thrombosis, rather than
infection, the use of anticoagulants (e.g. heparin) or thrombolytic agents
may have a role in the prevention of CR-BSI.
However, studies (e.g. Ashkenazi et al 1986; Ashton et al 1990; Weber
1991) indicate that 0.9% saline solution is as effective as heparin in
maintaining cannula patency and reducing phlebitis among peripheral
cannulas. In fact, the routine use of heparin, at 250 to 500 units per
day, has been associated with thrombocytopenia and thromboembolic
and hemorrhagic complications (Passannate and Macik 1988; Garrelts
1992).
IV additive such as hydrocortisone appeared to reduce phlebitis. For
example, the risk of phlebitis associated with the infusion of certain
fluids (such as potassium chloride (Sketch et al 1972), lidocaine (Bassan
and Sheikh-Hamad 1983) and anti-microbials (Sketch et al 1972) may
be reduced by the use of hydrocortisone (Sketch et al 1972). In other
trials, topical application of venodilators such as glyceryl trinitrate
(Khawaja et al 1988), or anti-inflammatory agents such as cortisone
near the cannula site (Woodhouse 1979), has reduced the incidence
of infusion-related thrombophlebitis and increased the life span of the
cannulas (Woodhouse 1979; O Brien et al 1990).
Routinely flush peripheral venous locks with normal saline solution,
unless they are used for obtaining blood specimens, in which case
a diluted heparin (10 units per ml) flush solution should be used.
Grade A, Level Ia
No recommendation for the routine use of topical venodilators (e.g.,
glyceryl trinitrate) or anti-inflammatory agents (e.g., cortisone) near
the insertion site of peripheral venous cannulas to reduce phlebitis.
No recommendation for the routine use of hydrocortisone or heparin
in parenteral solutions to reduce phlebitis.
18
5.3 Replacement of administration sets and IV fluids
Data from three well-controlled studies show that replacing
administration sets 72 hours or more after initiation of use is safe and
cost-effective (Maki et al 1987). However, certain fluids such as blood,
blood products, and lipid emulsions are likely to support microbial
growth if contaminated (Maki and Martin 1975; Jarvis and Highsmith
1984). Hence, more frequent replacement of IV tubing may be
necessary (Ministry of Health 2000).
Evidence consistently shows that endemic BSIs in hospitals as a result
of in-use contamination of IV fluids is infrequent and sporadic (Pearson
1996). The frequency ranged from 0.5% to 1.2% (Gorbea et al 1984;
Josepson et al 1985). Maki (1976) estimated the incidence of BSI from
contaminated fluids to be less than one per 1000 infusions.

In general, administration sets include the area from the spike of

tubing entering the fluid container to the hub of the vascular device.
However, a short extension tube may be connected to the vascular
device and may be considered a portion of the device to facilitate
aseptic technique when changing administration sets. Replace
extension tubing when the vascular device is replaced.
Grade C, Level IV

Replace IV tubing, including piggyback tubing and stopcocks at

72-hour intervals, unless clinically indicated.
Grade A, Level Ib

No recommendation for the frequency of replacement of IV tubing

used for intermittent infusions.
Replace tubing used to administer blood and blood products
immediately after transfusion.
Grade C, Level IV

Replace tubing used to administer lipid emulsions within 24 hours

of initiating the infusion.
Grade B, Level III
19
5.4 Intravenous injection ports
Stopcocks (or 3-way plug) are commonly used for administration of
medications, administration of IV infusions, or collection of blood
samples. They may represent another portal of entry for microorganisms
into vascular cannulas or IV fluids. Pearson (1996) noted
that stopcock contamination is common (between 45% and 50%),
the relative contribution of stopcock contamination to IV cannula or IV
fluid contamination is unclear. Few studies have been able to
demonstrate that the organism(s) colonising stopcocks are responsible
for cannula-related infection (McArthur et al 1975; Walrath et al 1979).
As an alternative to stopcocks, the use of a closed-needle sampling
system can reduce sampling port and IV fluid contamination
significantly (Crow et al 1989). Piggyback systems may also be used.
However, piggyback systems pose a risk for contamination of the IV
fluid if the needle entering the rubber membrane of an injection port is
exposed partially to air or comes into direct contact with the tape used
to fix the needle to the port (Pearson 1996).
Clean injection ports with 70% alcohol before accessing the system.
Grade C, Level IV
5.5 Preparation and quality control of IV admixtures
Some parenteral medications are dispensed in multi-dose parenteral
medication (MDVs) that may be used for prolonged periods for one or
more patients. Longfield and colleagues (1984) reported that though
the overall risk of extrinsic contamination (i.e. introduced into the system
during use) of MDVs appears to be small (estimated 0.5 per 1000 vials),
the consequences of contamination may be serious. Contamination
of MDVs as a result of breech in asepsis handling is known to result in
nosocomial outbreaks (Alter et al 1983; Jarvis and Highsmith 1984).
Highsmith and colleagues (1982) reported that when bacteria or yeasts
were inoculated into some commonly used medications, such as
heparin, potassium chloride, procainamide, methohexital,
succinylcholine chloride, and sodium thiopental for 96 hours at room
temperature, rarely were micro-organisms recovered irrespective of
whether they contained a preservative.
20
Pearson (1996) reported that micro-organisms could proliferate in
lidocaine and insulin only if the inocula were prepared in peptone water
(with one exception). Even in these instances, when vials were kept at
4°C as recommended, micro-organisms did not proliferate in the insulin.
Available evidence suggests that MDVs can be stored safely at room
temperature unless manufacturers recommendations or drug stability
dictate otherwise (Pearson 1996). Lehmann (1977) found that bacteria
remained viable significantly longer in refrigerated preservative-
containing MDVs than in vials stored at room temperature.

Check all containers of parenteral fluid for visible turbidity, leaks,

cracks, particulate matter, and the manufacturer s expiration date
before use.
Grade C, Level IV
Use single-dose vials for parenteral additives or medications
whenever possible.
Grade B, Level III

Refrigerate multi-dose vials after they are opened as recommended

by the manufacturer.
Grade B, Level IIb

Cleanse the rubber diaphragm of multi-dose vials with 70% alcohol

before inserting a device into the vial.
Grade B, Level III

Use a sterile device each time a multi-dose vial is accessed, and

avoid touch contamination of the device before penetrating the
rubber diaphragm.
Grade B, Level III

Discard multi-dose vials, when suspected or visible contamination

occurs or when the manufacturer s stated expiration date is due.
Grade B, Level III
21
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
6.1 In-line filters
In-line filters may reduce the incidence of infusion-related phlebitis
(Allcutt et al 1983; Maddox et al 1983; Falchuk et al 1985). However,
there was no evidence that they prevent infections associated with IV
devices and infusion systems (Pearson 1996). Advocators of in-line
filters claim that:
-reduce the risk of infection from contaminated infusate and
contamination introduced proximal to the filter;
-reduce the risk of phlebitis in patients who require high doses of
medication (e.g., anti-microbials) or in those in whom infusion-related
phlebitis already has occurred;
-remove particulate matter that may contaminate IV fluids (Turco and
Davis 1973) and;
-filter endotoxins produced by gram-negative organisms in
contaminated infusates (Baumgartner et al 1986).
It is important to examine the above theoretical advantages with the
understanding that infusate-related BSI rarely occurs (Pearson 1996).
Pre-use filtration at the production level is clearly a more practical and
less costly way to remove most particulates from infusates (Pearson
1996). Furthermore, when used with certain solutions (e.g. dextran,
lipids, mannitol), in-line filters may become blocked and require
increased line manipulations and decrease the availability of
administered drugs (Butler et al 1980). Hence, the routine use of in-
line filters is perceived to increase cost, personnel time and possible
infections (Freeman and Litton 1974).
Do not use filters routinely for infection control purposes.
Grade B, Level IIa
22
6.2 Needleless intravascular devices
Needleless infusion systems were introduced to reduce the incidence
of sharps injuries and the resultant risk of transmission of blood-borne
infections to healthcare workers. There is limited evidence to support
reduction in the potential risk of contamination of the cannula and
infusate and subsequent cannula-related infection associated with the
use of needless infusion systems (Pearson 1996).

No recommendation for use of needleless intravascular devices.

6.3 Prophylactic anti-microbials
Prophylactic administration of anti-microbials has been used to reduce
the incidence of CR-BSIs, but scientific studies on the efficacy of this
practice are inconclusive (Pearson 1996).

Do not administer anti-microbials routinely before insertion or during

use of an IV device to prevent cannula colonisation or bloodstream
infection.
Grade A, Level Ib
23
7 SURVEILLANCE
7.1 Surveillance for cannula-related infection
The establishment of intensive infection surveillance and control
programmes was strongly associated with reduction in nosocomial
infection rates. Essential components of an effective programme
include conducting organised surveillance and control activities, trained
infection control physicians and nurses, and a system of reporting
infection rates (Haley et al 1985).
Unlike surveillance of quantitative skin cultures, targeted quantitative
skin cultures done when cannula infection is suspected are highly
sensitive, specific and predictive (Raad et al 1995).
Palpate the cannula insertion site daily for tenderness through the
intact dressing.
Grade C, Level IV
Inspect the cannula site visually if the patient has evidence of
tenderness at the insertion site, fever without obvious cause, or
symptoms of local or bloodstream infection.
Grade C, Level IV
In patients who have large, bulky dressings that prevent palpation
or direct visualisation of the cannula insertion site, remove the
dressing, visually inspect the cannula site at least once daily and
apply a new dressing.
Grade C, Level IV
Record the date and time of cannula insertion in an obvious location
near the cannula-insertion site (e.g., on the dressing).
Grade C, Level IV
Conduct surveillance for IV device-related infections to determine
device-specific infection rates, to monitor trends in those rates, and
to assist in identifying lapses in infection control practices within
one s own institution.
Grade B, Level IIa
Do not routinely perform surveillance cultures of devices used for IV
access.
Grade B, Level IIb
24
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
8.1 Health care worker education and training
Educational and enforcement programmes designed to improve
handwashing procedures can significantly reduce endemic nosocomial
infection rates (Conly et al 1989). Studies have shown that the incidence
of sepsis corresponded to a greater number of untrained nurses
(Vanherweghem et al 1986).
Conduct ongoing education and training of health care workers
regarding procedures for the insertion and maintenance of IV devices
and appropriate infection control measures to prevent IV device-
related infections. Audiovisuals can serve as a useful adjunct to
educational efforts.
Grade A, Level Ib
25
CLINICAL AUDIT
Hospital and institution administrators should consider these guidelines
in their in-house quality assurance programmes. Nurses should critically
review the implications of these guidelines on their routine care, patient-
teaching and educational needs.
9.1 Outcome indicators
The recommended key outcome indicator is indwelling cannula
phlebitis rate.
Indwelling phlebitis rate may best be assured through audits of
randomly selected individual episodes of care and a retrospective
review of cases at regular intervals. Pearson (1996) recommends
keeping phlebitis occurrence rate to below 5%. The phlebitis rate is
calculated according to a standard formula:
Number of phlebitis
(1+ or higher) incidentsX 100 = % Peripheral Phlebitis
Total number of IV peripheral lines
9.2 Assessment tool
The degree of phlebitis shall be measured according to a uniform scale
and shall be documented in the nursing record. A phlebitis scale
provides a uniform standard for measuring degrees of phlebitis. The
presence of pain does not constitute phlebitis. However, pain must
always be evaluated to determine appropriate intervention. Pain around
the cannula is usually a precursor to phlebitis that requires cannula
removal and documentation in the nursing record. A phlebitis scale
should be established in organisational policy and procedure. Pearson
(1996) recommends the following Phlebitis Rating Scale:
26
 Phlebitis Scale Description
0 No clinical symptoms
1+ Erythema with or without pain
Oedema may or may not be present
No streak formation
No palpable cord
2+ Erythema with or without pain
Oedema may or may not be present
Streak formation
No palpable cord
3+ Erythema with or without pain
Oedema may or may not be present
Streak formation
Palpable cord
9.3 Audit
Audit is strongly recommended at ward level. It will be advantageous
to establish current baseline practice against which change may be
measured.
9.4 Management role
Hospital and institution administrators, together with quality assurance
teams should ensure that outcome indicators are met. They may use
hospital or institution that perform well as a benchmark of quality
practice.
27
10 IMPLEMENTATION OF GUIDELINES

It is expected that these guidelines be adopted after discussion with

clinical and management staff of their respective hospitals and
institutions. They may review how these guidelines may complement
or be incorporated into their existing institution protocols.
Feedback may be directed to the Ministry of Health for consideration
in future review.
28
REFERENCES
Allcutt DA, Lort D, McCollum CN. 1983. Final inline filtration for intravenous
infusions: a prospective hospital study. Br J Surg, 70:111-3.
Alter MJ, Ahtone J, Maynard JE. 1983. Hepatitis B virus transmission
associated with a multiple-dose vial in a hemodialysis unit. Ann Intern Med,
99:330-3.
Ashkenazi S, Weiss E, Drucker MM. 1986. Bacterial adherence to intravenous
catheters and needles and its influence by cannula type and bacterial surface
hydrophobicity. J Lab Clin Med, 107:136-40.
Ashton J, Gibson V, Summers S. 1990. Effects of heparin versus saline solution
on intermittent infusion device irrigation. Heart Lung, 19:608-12.
Ayliffe GA, Babb JR, Davies JG, Lilly HA. 1988. Hand disinfection: a
comparison of various agents in laboratory and ward studies. J Hosp Infect,
11:226-43.
Band JD, Maki DG. 1980. Steel needles used for intravenous therapy.
Morbidity in patients with hematologic malignancy. Arch Intern Med, 140:31

4.
Bassan MM, Sheikh-Hamad D. 1983. Prevention of lidocaine-infusion phlebitis
by heparin and hydrocortisone. Chest, 84:439-41.
Baumgartner TG, Schmidt GL, Thakker KM, et al. 1986. Bacterial endotoxin
retention by inline intravenous filters. Am J Hosp Pharm, 43:681-4.
Butler DL, Munson JM, Deluca PP. 1980. Effect of inline filtration on the
potency of low-dose drugs. Am J Hosp Pharm, 37:935-41.
Collin J, Collin C, Constable FL, Johnston ID. 1975. Infusion thrombophlebitis
and infection with various cannulas. Lancet, 2:150-3.
29
Conly JM, Hill S, Ross J, Lertzman J, Louie TJ. 1989. Handwashing practices
in an intensive care unit: The effects of an educational program and its
relationship to infection rates. Am J Clin Pathol, 17:330-9.
Cooper GL, Hopkins CC. 1985. Rapid diagnosis of intravascular catheter-
associated infection by direct gram-staining of catheter segments. N Engl J
Med, 312:1142-7.
Crane C. 1960. Venous interruption of septic thrombophlebitis. N Engl J Med,
262:947-51.
Craven DE, Lichtenberg A, Kunches LM, et al. 1985. A randomized study
comparing a transparent polyurethane dressing to a dry gauze dressing for
peripheral intravenous catheter sites. Am J Infect Control, 6:361-6.
Crow S, Conrad SA, Chaney-Rowell C, King JW. 1989. Microbial
contamination of arterial infusions used for hemodynamic monitoring: a
randomized trial of contamination with sampling through conventional
stopcocks versus a novel closed system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol,
10:557-61.
Ena J, Cercenado E, Martinez D, Bouza E. 1992. Cross-sectional epidemiology
of phlebitis and catheter-related infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol,
13:15-20.
Falchuk KH, Peterson L, McNeil BJ. 1985. Microparticulate-induced phlebitis:
Its prevention by in-line filtration. N Engl J Med, 312:78-82.
Flowers RH, Schwenzer KJ, Kopel RF, Fisch MJ, Tucker SI, Farr BM. 1989.
Efficacy of an attachable subcutaneous cuff for the prevention of intravascular
catheter-related infection: A randomized, controlled trial. JAMA, 261:878

83.
Freeman JB, Litton AA. 1974. Preponderance of gram-positive infections
during parenteral alimentation. Surg Gynecol Obstet, 139:905-8.
Gantz NM, Presswood GM, Goldbert R, Doern G. 1984. Effects of dressing
type and change interval on intravenous therapy complication rates. Diagn
Microbiol Infect Dis, 2:325-32.
30
Garrelts JC. 1992. White clot syndrome and thrombocytopenia: Reasons to
abandon heparin IV lock flush solution. Clin Pharm, 11:797-9.
Gorbea HF, Snydman DR, Delaney A, Stockman J, Martin WJ. 1984.
Intravenous tubing with burettes can be safely changed at 48-hour intervals.
JAMA, 251:2112-5.
Haley RW, Culver DH, White JW, et al. 1985. The efficacy of infection
surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US
hospitals. Am J Epidemiol, 121:182-205.
Highsmith AK, Greenhood R, Allen JR. 1982. Growth of nosocomial pathogens
in multiple-dose parenteral medication vials. J Clin Microbiol, 15:1024-8.
Hoffmann KK, Western SA, Kaiser DL, Wenzel RP, Groschel DH. 1988.
Bacterial colonization and phlebitis-associated risk with transparent
polyurethane film for peripheral intravenous site dressings. Am J Infect Control
,
16:101-6.
Infusion Nurses Society. 2000. Infusion nursing standards of practice.
Jarvis WR, Highsmith AK. 1984. Bacterial growth and endotoxin production
in lipid emulsion. J Clin Microbiol, 19:17-20.
Joanna Briggs Institute of Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery. 1998.
Management of peripheral intravascular devices. Best Practice, 2(1):1-6.
Josephson A, Gombert ME, Sierra MF, Karanfil LV, Tansino GF. 1985. The
relationship between intravenous fluid contamination and the frequency of
tubing replacement. Infect Control, 6:367-70.
Katich M, Band J. 1985. Local infection of the intravenous-cannulae wound
associated with transparent dressings. J Infect Dis, 151:971-72.
Khawaja HT, Campbell MS, Weaver PC. 1988. Effect of transdermal glyceryl
trinitrate on the survival of peripheral intravenous infusions: A double-blind
prospective clinical study. Br J Surg, 75:1212-5.
31
Larson E, Hargiss C. 1984. A decentralized approach to maintenance of
intravenous therapy. Am J Infect Control, 12:177-86.
Lehmann CR. 1977. Effect of refrigeration on bactericidal activity of four
multiple-dose injectable drug products. Am J Hosp Pharm, 34:1196-200.
Linares J, Sitges-Serra A, Garau J, Perez JL, Martin R. 1985. Pathogenesis
of catheter sepsis: A prospective study with quantitative and semiquantitative
cultures of catheter hub and segments. J Clin Microbiol, 21:357-60.
Longfield R, Longfield J, Smith LP, Hyams KC, Strohmer ME. 1984. Multidose
medication vial sterility: An in-use study and a review of the literature. Am J
Infect Control, 5:165-9.
Maddox RR, John JF Jr, Brown LL, Smith CE. 1983. Effect of inline filtration
on postinfusion phlebitis. Clin Pharm, 2:58-61.
Maki DG. 1976. Sepsis arising from extrinsic contamination of the infusion
and measures for control. In: Phillips I, Meers PD, D Arcy PF, eds. (1976).
Microbiological Hazards of Infusion Therapy. Lancaster, England: MTP Press.
Maki DG. 1992. Infections due to infusion therapy. In: Bennett JV, Brachman
PS, eds. 1992. Hospital Infections. (3rd ed). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and
Co.
Maki DG, Band JD. 1981. A comparative study of polyantibiotic and iodophor
ointment in prevention of vascular catheter-related infection. Am J Med,
70:739-44.
Maki DG, Botticelli JT, LeRoy ML, Thielke TS. 1987. Prospective study of
replacing administration sets for intravenous therapy at 48- vs 72-hour
intervals: 72 hours is safe and cost-effective. JAMA, 258:1777-81.
Maki DG, Martin WT. 1975. Nationwide epidemic of septicemia caused by
contaminated infusion products, IV: Growth of microbial pathogens in fluids
for intravenous infection. J Infect Dis, 131:267-72.
32
Maki DG, Ringer M. 1987. Evaluation of dressing regimens for prevention of
infection with peripheral intravenous catheters: Gauze, a transparent
polyurethane dressing, and an iodophor-transparent dressing. JAMA,
258:2396-403.
Maki DG, Ringer M. 1991. Risk factors for infusion-related phlebitis with small
peripheral venous catheters: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med,
114:845-54.
Martin MA, Pfaller MA, Wenzel RP. 1989. Coagulase-negative staphylococcal
bacteremia: Mortality and hospital stay. Ann Intern Med, 110:9-16.
McArthur BJ, Hargiss C, Schoenknecht FD. 1975. Stopcock contamination
in an ICU. Am J Nurs, 75:96-7.
McNair TJ, Dudley HA. 1959. The local complications of intravenous therapy.
Lancet, 2:365-8.
Ministry of Health. 2000. Infection Control Manual. Ministry of Health,
Singapore.
Norden CW. 1969. Application of antibiotic ointment to the site of venous
catheterization a controlled trial. J Infect Dis, 120:611-5.
O Brien BJ, Buxton MJ, Khawaja HT. 1990. An economic evaluation of
transdermal glycerly trinitrate in the prevention of intravenous infusion failur
e.
J Clin Epidemiol, 43:757-63.
Passannate A, Macik BG. 1988. Case report: The heparin flush syndrome - a
cause of iatrogenic hemorrhage. Am J Med Sci, 296:71-3.
Pearson ML. 1996. Guideline for prevention of intravascular device-related
infections. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.
American Journal of Infection Control, 24(2):262-93, 17/52/76311.
Phillips RW, Eyre JD. 1958. Septic thrombophlebitis with septicemia. N Engl
J Med, 259:729-31.
33
Raad I, Baba M, Bodey GP. 1995. Diagnosis of catheter-related infections:
Role of the surveillance and targeted quantitative skin cultures. Clin Infect
Dis, 20:593-7.
Raad I, Costerton W, Sabharwal U, et al. 1993. Ultrastructural analysis of
indwelling vascular catheters: A quantitative relationship between luminal
colonization and duration of placement. J Infect Dis, 168:400-7.
Raad II, Hohn DC, Gilbreath BJ, et al. 1994. Prevention of central venous
catheter-related infections by using maximal sterile barrier precautions during
insertion. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 15: 231-8
Ricard P, Martin R, Marcoux JA. 1985. Protection of indwelling vascular
catheters: Incidence of bacterial contamination and catheter-related sepsis.
Crit Care Med, 13:541-3.
Rotter M, Koller W, Wewalka G. 1980. Povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine
gluconate-containing detergents for disinfection of hands. J Hosp Infect,
1:149-58.
Salzman MB, Isenberg HD, Shapiro JF, Lipsitz PJ, Rubin LG. 1993. A
prospective study of the catheter hub as the portal of entry for microorganisms
causing catheter-related sepsis in neonates. J Infect Dis, 167:487-90.
Shapiro JM, Bond EL, Garman JK. 1990. Use of a chlorhexidine dressing to
reduce microbial colonization of epidural catheters. Anesthesiology, 73:625

31.
Sheth NK, Rose HD, Franson TR, Buckmire FL, Cooper JA, Sohnle PG. 1983.
Colonization of bacteria on polyvinyl chloride and Teflon catheters in
hospitalized patients. J Clin Microbiol, 18:1061-3.
Simmons B, Bryant J, Neiman K, et al. 1990. The role of handwashing in
prevention of endemic intensive care unit infections. Infect Control Hosp
Epidemiol, 11:589-94.
Sketch MH, Cale M, Mohiuddin SM, Booth RW. 1972. Use of percutaneously
inserted venous catheters in coronary care units. Chest, 62:684-9.
34
Snydman DR, Pober BR, Murray SA, Gorbea HF, Majka JA, Perry LK. 1982.
Predictive value of surveillance skin cultures in total parenteral nutrition-rel
ated
infection. Prospective epidemiologic study using semiquantitative cultures.
Lancet, 1385-8.
Steere AC, Mallison GF. 1975. Handwashing practices for the prevention of
nosocomial infections. Ann Intern Med, 83:784-7.
Stillman RM, Soliman F, Garcia L, et al. 1977. Etiology of catheter-associated
sepsis: Correlation with thrombogenicity. Arch Surg, 112:1497-502.
Strand CL, Wajsbort RR, Sturmann K. 1993. Effect of iodophor vs iodine
tincture skin preparation on blood culture contamination rate. JAMA,
269:1004-6.
Tully JL, Friedland GH, Baldini LM, Goldman DA. 1981. Complications of
intravenous therapy with steel needles and Teflon catheters: A comparative
study. Am J Med, 70:702-6.
Turco SJ, Davis NM. 1973. Particulate matter in intravenous infusion fluids
phase 3. Am J Hosp Pharm, 30:611-3.
Vanherweghem JL, Dhaene M, Goldman M, et al. 1986. Infections associated
with subclavian dialysis catheters: The key role of nurse training. Nephron,
42:116-9.
Walrath JM, Abbott NK, Caplan E, Scalan E. 1979. Stopcock: Bacterial
contamination in invasive monitoring systems. Heart Lung, 8:100-4.
Weber DR. 1991. Is heparin really necessary in the lock and, if so, how much?
Drugs Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacy Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 25:399

407.
Woodhouse CR. 1979. Movelat in the prevention of infusion thrombophlebitis.
Br Med J, 1:454-5.
Zinner SH, Denny-Brown BC, Braun P, Burke JP, Toala P, Kass EH. 1969.
Risk of infection with indwelling intravenous catheters: Effect of application
of antibiotic ointment. J Infect Dis, 120:616-9.
35
SELF ASSESSMENT
This list of questions is included in this clinical practice guideline as an
extension of the learning process. You may choose to respond to these
questions after reading the CPG.
1 Phlebitis associated with peripheral venous
cannulas is often a physiochemical or
mechanical, rather than an infectious
phenomenon.
True / False
2 Peripheral venous cannulas inserted in the
upper extremity have lower risk of phlebitis than
those on the lower extremity.
True / False
3 Cannulas inserted under emergency conditions
should preferably be replaced at a different site
within 24 hrs.
True / False
4 Routine application of topical anti-microbial
ointment to the insertion site of peripheral
venous cannulas effectively eliminate phlebitis.
True / False
5 Diluted heparin is preferred over normal saline
as the routine flush solution to maintain cannula
patency and reduce phlebitis among peripheral
cannulas.
True / False
6 All administration sets must be changed within
48 hrs.
True / False
7 Cannula insertion site should be palpated at
least daily for tenderness.
True / False
8 Cannula site should be visually inspected if the
patient has evidence of tenderness at the
insertion site, fever without obvious cause, or
symptoms of local or bloodstream infection.
True / False
36
Institutions should routinely perform surveillance
cultures of devices used for IV access for all
patients.
10 Educational and enforcement programmes
designed to improve handwashing procedures
can significantly reduce endemic nosocomial
infection rates.
True / False
True / False
Please refer to the following pages for answers to these questions
Question No Page No
1 8
2 14
3 15
4 16
5 18
6 19
7 24
8 24
9 24
10 25
37
WORKGROUP MEMBERS
Chairperson
Wong Luan Wah, RN, MSc, BAppSc (Nursing), TSN
Members
Azizah Mohamed, RN, BSc (Hons) Management, INCC
Chan Mei Mei, RN, BSc Nursing Management
Chay Kok Khuen Andy, RN, BN, DHRM, Adv Dip CC
Chua Siew Hong Catherine, RN, RMN, MSc Hosp Management,
DHSHM
Koh Paulin, RN, RM, BSc (Hons) Nursing Studies, Adv Dip Midwifery
Lee Leng Noey, RN, BHSN, OTNC
Liu Li Chu, RN, BHSN, INCC
Loh Mun Fun, RN, BN, Grad Dip Adv Nursing (Nursing
Management), ONC
Suppiah Nagammal, RN, BHSN, Cert Ed, OTNC
Tan Khoon Kiat, RN, MEd, BSc (Hons) Nursing Studies, AdvDipQM
Tan Poh Choo, RN, Dip Management Studies
Advisor
Boon Juag Fong, RN, BAppSc (Nursing), NNSNC
External Consultant
Miny Samuel, PhD, MSc
38